Re: religious/political question
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:50 AM 10/31/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:21 PM 10/30/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: The only group you are likely to get consistent answers from would be the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from some of the others who have already answered your email. William T. Goodall replied: Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no dissent from their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that freethinkers and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious thought control, not the other way around. Though it is interesting how many of the people who describe themselves as free thinkers seem to think alike on so many issues, and to reject the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on those issues (abortion, frex) . . . Because their minds are clear of ignorant religious dogma? Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Stems cells are not humans, and I am unwilling to give stem cells human rights. I was going to ask what you thought a self-described free thinker would say to someone who opposes abortion, but you seem to have answered that question already, and to have made my point that the free thinkers are just as unaccepting and unforgiving of those in their ranks who do not agree with them as the members of any religious organization. Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:50 AM 10/31/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:21 PM 10/30/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: The only group you are likely to get consistent answers from would be the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from some of the others who have already answered your email. William T. Goodall replied: Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no dissent from their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that freethinkers and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious thought control, not the other way around. Though it is interesting how many of the people who describe themselves as free thinkers seem to think alike on so many issues, and to reject the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on those issues (abortion, frex) . . . Because their minds are clear of ignorant religious dogma? Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Stems cells are not humans, and I am unwilling to give stem cells human rights. I was going to ask what you thought a self-described free thinker would say to someone who opposes abortion, but you seem to have answered that question already, and to have made my point that the free thinkers are just as unaccepting and unforgiving of those in their ranks who do not agree with them as the members of any religious organization. Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Q.E.D. -- Ronn! :) People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 31 Oct 2003 at 23:11, William T Goodall wrote: On 31 Oct 2003, at 10:31 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 31 Oct 2003 at 21:28, William T Goodall wrote: Hence it is a non sequitur. Why? Because I'm attacking something YOU believe in for a change? My belief that your English comprehension skills are rather poor? I'm dyslexic. If you don't like it, STFU. There's no non sequitur here except you on the defensive. Each of your posts in this thread is more evidence for my belief :) Yes, and you're part of the very problem which created 9/11 and continues to cause problems in the world. Not me. I'd point out you've placed yourself in the same category as child rapists and suchlike a few days ago in one of tour posts, by comparing religion to them. The difference is religion is socially accepted, putting YOU on the other side of that boundry. So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists, we should all jump for joy because he is eliminating the evil non-religious terrorists who tell people what the bible really says instead of what the clergy say it says. Religion is socially accepted he says so off with atheists heads, because their unacceptable evil will permeate society and cause it's downfall. Lets burn the freethinkers on stakes, for that has always been socially acceptable. Lets put the rationalist on crosses as is the social norm. Lets burn down the evil atheists cities, kill all their males, male children, non-virginal young women, livestock, and pets, lets rape the female children and carry them off to be concubines and slaves, just like our ancestors, and people in the bible did. Because everything religious people do and say and read and write is perfect and moral and good, and everything those evil non-believers say and do read and write comes from Satan himself, therfore those vile non-believers need to drawn and quartered forthwith. Kill them all. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:50 AM 10/31/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:21 PM 10/30/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: The only group you are likely to get consistent answers from would be the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from some of the others who have already answered your email. William T. Goodall replied: Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no dissent from their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that freethinkers and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious thought control, not the other way around. Though it is interesting how many of the people who describe themselves as free thinkers seem to think alike on so many issues, and to reject the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on those issues (abortion, frex) . . . Because their minds are clear of ignorant religious dogma? Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Stems cells are not humans, and I am unwilling to give stem cells human rights. I was going to ask what you thought a self-described free thinker would say to someone who opposes abortion, but you seem to have answered that question already, and to have made my point that the free thinkers are just as unaccepting and unforgiving of those in their ranks who do not agree with them as the members of any religious organization. Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Q.E.D. The only thing you've proven is that you don't answer questions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: The only group you are likely to get consistent answers from would be the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from some of the others who have already answered your email. William T. Goodall replied: Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? I responded: That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no dissent from their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? The Fool retorted: Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that freethinkers and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious thought control, not the other way around. I nominate your post for newspeak / doublethink post of the month. Ritu exposited: I oppose the nomination. :) I don't think he was trying to frame free-thinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. Besides, there is a point in what he says: I have met many atheists who are best described as devout atheists. Their lack of theism is based not as much in rationality as in an overpowering hatred of all things religious. I am sure they have their reasons but I do think that they have thrown off only some of their 'religious shackles'. After all, an overwhelmingly strong negative reaction still indicates an emotional attachment, albeit a negative emotional attachment. What she said, more or less. The original post in this thread was about religious beliefs that some people have and how those affect the political decisions those people make. Instead of responding to those questions in a meaningful way, the anti-religious folks on the list immediately jumped in with the same old argument they've made many times, which basically boils down to religion bad. It was so predictable and such a knee-jerk reaction that it looked like they were spouting a party-line that had been brainwashed into them. In other words, ironically, it looked like an orthodoxy. So I called it what it looked like. It is not orthodoxy to point out what the text of the evil book you 'christians' go on and on about really says, instead of what religious leaders say it says. The same religious leaders who say condoms cause AIDS. The same Religious leaders who say condoms don't stop the transmission of HIV. The same Religious leaders who cover up priest child molestation. Can we now get back to answering the interesting questions that Robert Chassell originally asked when he started this thread? Thanks in advance. I gave a fair opinion based on all the evidence: What the text says, what the religion has done in the past, what the religion does / says now. The religious leaders try to cover up the past, they try to obfucate what really happened, and what the text really says. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003 at 0:58, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:50 AM 10/31/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:21 PM 10/30/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote: The only group you are likely to get consistent answers from would be the anti-religious groups, as you can probably see from some of the others who have already answered your email. William T. Goodall replied: Doesn't this indicate where the compelling evidence leads? That the only group that follows in lockstep and allows no dissent from their orthodoxy is the anti-religious group? Interesting. You are attempting to frame freethinkers and rationalists as authoritarian thought police. But the fact remains that freethinkers and rationalists have thrown off shackles of religious thought control, not the other way around. Though it is interesting how many of the people who describe themselves as free thinkers seem to think alike on so many issues, and to reject the positions of anyone who disagrees with them on those issues (abortion, frex) . . . Because their minds are clear of ignorant religious dogma? Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Stems cells are not humans, and I am unwilling to give stem cells human rights. I was going to ask what you thought a self-described free thinker would say to someone who opposes abortion, but you seem to have answered that question already, and to have made my point that the free thinkers are just as unaccepting and unforgiving of those in their ranks who do not agree with them as the members of any religious organization. Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Ask them. My position is quite clear - a mature Human being is more valuable than an unborn child. That's not to say that an unborn child doesn't have value, but the mother - and her wishes - must come first. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003 at 1:17, The Fool wrote: From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 31 Oct 2003 at 23:11, William T Goodall wrote: On 31 Oct 2003, at 10:31 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 31 Oct 2003 at 21:28, William T Goodall wrote: Hence it is a non sequitur. Why? Because I'm attacking something YOU believe in for a change? My belief that your English comprehension skills are rather poor? I'm dyslexic. If you don't like it, STFU. There's no non sequitur here except you on the defensive. Each of your posts in this thread is more evidence for my belief :) Yes, and you're part of the very problem which created 9/11 and continues to cause problems in the world. Not me. I'd point out you've placed yourself in the same category as child rapists and suchlike a few days ago in one of tour posts, by comparing religion to them. The difference is religion is socially accepted, putting YOU on the other side of that boundry. So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists, we should all jump for joy because he is eliminating the evil non-religious terrorists who tell people what the bible really says instead of what the clergy say it says. Religion is socially accepted he says so off with atheists heads, because their unacceptable evil will permeate society and cause it's downfall. Lets burn the freethinkers on stakes, for that has always been socially acceptable. Lets put the rationalist on crosses as is the social norm. Lets burn down the evil atheists cities, kill all their males, male children, non-virginal young women, livestock, and pets, lets rape the female children and carry them off to be concubines and slaves, just like our ancestors, and people in the bible did. Because everything religious people do and say and read and write is perfect and moral and good, and everything those evil non-believers say and do read and write comes from Satan himself, therfore those vile non-believers need to drawn and quartered forthwith. Kill them all. I repeat something I've posted before. The enemy is not a culture. Not a religion. Not a people. It is an idea. A meme, if you will. The meme is as follows: That is it allright to mistreat other people, to belittle their views and to take away their capacity to decide for themselves, to kill them for simply being who they are - of a different faith, colour or people to your own. In other words, tollerance. Something the target of my rant utterly lacks. He is PART of the problem. He is no better, to me, than any extremeist, except that as far as I know he only talks about his views, not acts on them. He has a right to speak (although I think it has no value), but I will allways oppose the *acts* of the blindly intollerant. I am Masorti Jewish. The faith stresses several things - that Humans have free will, to live how they chose. That before one can understand anything, one must understand oneself and that tollerance and sharing between peoples is the way to social progress. And that intollerance, regardless of it's name, is wrong. Some members of this list automatically pidgeonhole other members, based entirely on a few things about them. Sterotyping is not only wrong, it is harmful. It is a blinker which stops you from seeing the world except through a narrow slit of what you consider acceptable. I work towards understanding and tollerance. I will allways do so, and the blindness which you chose, the intollerance and the hatred, is something I will allways oppose. If you don't want to hear my views, don't want me on Brin-L, just tell me. Andrew Crystall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
At 01:21 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Q.E.D. The only thing you've proven is that you don't answer questions. Okay. If you really need an answer to that question, consider when was the last time you heard of a woman calling everyone she knows to say I have cancer! Isn't it wonderful? We've been trying to make a tumor for so long now! and everyone answers Oh, I'm so happy for you and your husband! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
At 07:40 AM 11/1/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote: If you don't want to hear my views, don't want me on Brin-L, just tell me. FWIW, I want you here and to hear your views. Regardless of whether I happen to agree with any particular view you express or not (not referring to the current thread, but in general). The same applies to everyone else on this list and their views. Again, regardless of whether I happen to agree with them or not. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:21 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Q.E.D. The only thing you've proven is that you don't answer questions. Okay. If you really need an answer to that question, consider when was the last time you heard of a woman calling everyone she knows to say I have cancer! Isn't it wonderful? We've been trying to make a tumor for so long now! and everyone answers Oh, I'm so happy for you and your husband! But not all women are trying to get pregnant, or want to be pregnant. Your argument isn't symetrical. Not all women in the situation you described would be happy and calling their friends. The ones are _are_ happy ect. aren't forced to have abortions against their will. Likewise their are lots of women who don't want to have a child, and don't want to forced to have one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:17 AM Subject: Re: religious/political question So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists, we should all jump for joy because he is eliminating the evil non-religious terrorists who tell people what the bible really says instead of what the clergy say it says. Religion is socially accepted he says so off with atheists heads, because their unacceptable evil will permeate society and cause it's downfall. Lets burn the freethinkers on stakes, for that has always been socially acceptable. Lets put the rationalist on crosses as is the social norm. Lets burn down the evil atheists cities, kill all their males, male children, non-virginal young women, livestock, and pets, lets rape the female children and carry them off to be concubines and slaves, just like our ancestors, and people in the bible did. Because everything religious people do and say and read and write is perfect and moral and good, and everything those evil non-believers say and do read and write comes from Satan himself, therfore those vile non-believers need to drawn and quartered forthwith. Kill them all. Somebody hasn't been taking their happy pills like the doctor said to. xponent The New Bozo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:47 AM Subject: Re: religious/political question At 07:40 AM 11/1/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote: If you don't want to hear my views, don't want me on Brin-L, just tell me. FWIW, I want you here and to hear your views. Regardless of whether I happen to agree with any particular view you express or not (not referring to the current thread, but in general). The same applies to everyone else on this list and their views. Again, regardless of whether I happen to agree with them or not. Bingo! Don't let the Fool run you off. He just has a penchant for living up to his name. G Question: Why do people on this list so frequently show their ass? xponent Buttsplice Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:58 AM Subject: Re: religious/political question From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:21 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Q.E.D. The only thing you've proven is that you don't answer questions. Okay. If you really need an answer to that question, consider when was the last time you heard of a woman calling everyone she knows to say I have cancer! Isn't it wonderful? We've been trying to make a tumor for so long now! and everyone answers Oh, I'm so happy for you and your husband! But not all women are trying to get pregnant, or want to be pregnant. Your argument isn't symetrical. Not all women in the situation you described would be happy and calling their friends. The ones are _are_ happy ect. aren't forced to have abortions against their will. Likewise their are lots of women who don't want to have a child, and don't want to forced to have one. You are equating cancer surgery with abortion? xponent Content Free Content Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
At 01:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:21 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:58 AM 11/1/03 -0600, The Fool wrote: I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? [snip] Answer #1 to your question: The difference between a fetus and a malignant tumor is that while some women do not want to be pregnant, and others want a baby very much, no one wants to have cancer. Answer #2 to your question: If nothing interrupts its growth and development, in nine months the parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells will become a baby, however, if nothing interrupts its growth and development, in nine months the cancer may kill you. Answer #3 to your question: Cancer bad. Baby may be good news or not, but cancer always bad. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
At 07:09 AM 11/1/03 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:47 AM Subject: Re: religious/political question At 07:40 AM 11/1/03 +, Andrew Crystall wrote: If you don't want to hear my views, don't want me on Brin-L, just tell me. FWIW, I want you here and to hear your views. Regardless of whether I happen to agree with any particular view you express or not (not referring to the current thread, but in general). The same applies to everyone else on this list and their views. Again, regardless of whether I happen to agree with them or not. Bingo! Don't let the Fool run you off. He just has a penchant for living up to his name. G Question: Why do people on this list so frequently show their ass? In Numbers 22, it was considered a miracle when an ass spoke . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:36:05AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Cancer bad. Baby may be good news or not, but cancer always bad. Not true. For example, Saddam Hussein and/or Osama bin Laden, cancer good. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Owny Woo
Start here: http://members.cox.net/midaswelby/ownywoo.htm and be sure to listen to the remix! This made a bit of a splash a year or so ago, created by I guy I know on usenet. and then: http://www.gelamorph.com/images/Owny%20Woo.jpg xponent Meme Travel On The Net Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Baby (and mommy) update
Jean-Marc wrote- I would not worry about that, I'm not a doctor but I can just tell about my wife example. After the last pregnancy, I was able to put my hand _flat_ between her two main abds. It took one year for her muscles to remotely look normal and two years to really be normal. Now, I envy her abdominals. when she exercices she's really got a six-pack. Here is one of last summer pictures http://www.famille-chaton.net/photos/ete2003/pic188-21-0.html Great pic, she is the classic example of the image of a beautiful woman that an old guy friend of mine had- a truly beautiful woman is one who has a great body even with kids. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: It's a boy!
Rob wrote- Think of a pair of pliers with somewhat unusual-looking jaws, which explains the carpal-tunnel pain from repeated use in a short period. I don't know if it would help, but when I need ergonomic options I usually surf around on www.thomasregister.com to looks for options. If you have never used it, it houses hundreds of catalogs that can be searched then viewed, etc. The other thing that would help is to know your optimal grip circumference/diameter (for most average guys it is around 6 1/4 circumference as best I can recall). If you are doing something repeatedly there will be less fatigue if you don't have to use a higher percent of your strength. Dee- lapsing twice in one week into PT mode ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Overloaded English was: Re: religious/political question
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't accept that, You don't accept that the use of the word religion, or that the intent was that use? You don't accept that you are mistaken about this usage? I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously. That would be a non sequitur. No it isn't. It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the word. Then he said I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously. Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean something other than I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously. But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a different definition of religion than the one he used in the first paragraph. Hence it is a non sequitur. The overloading of words has some serious consequneces to comunication in english. Unlike other languages we seem to refuse the creation of new words and so, old words get reused in new ways. This has seriously obsfiscating consequences to the transmision of ideas and consepts. One must gain an ever more precise insite into the intended meaning rather than the possible meanings of the resulting message. Take the word depricated for instance. It holds two meanings the most prominant to an engeneer would be to make something obsolete. But to a writter saying something is depricated means that it is of poor quality. To a snowboarder a guy whoe is sick is very good at performing some set of manuvers on the snow, but to a doctor the same guy sounds as if the person might need the doctors assistence. What about guy in the previous example? To anyone over 40 the guy specifies male gender. To many under 40 guy is not gender specific. One might hang with the guys and all of them would be feemale. They also would be in no peril, as hang simply means to congragate. In the software feild one might use the word this, self, construct, entity, class, object, aspect, or any of thousands of words to mean 2 or more very specific things. Without previous experience and specific insite into the intended meaning converstaions about software can become quite confusing. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] A Tirade Against 'The Burning Man'
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:02 PM 10/31/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Now, when I'm spending time at a similar event, I see some stuff that I'm not comfortable with (more of it having to do with drug use because hey, I use drugs when I come to this thing, but not the rest of the time isn't enough of an excuse IMO), but I know it's there, I know how to avoid some of it, and there's enough positive stuff I get out of the whole thing that I can ignore the negative stuff, unless it's someone acting like a total @#$% with a bullhorn at 5:30 AM. :) My reaction to such behavior was to inform the offender sweetly that if he uses that bullhorn one more time while people (like me) are trying to sleep, he will suddenly find it in such a location that he will have to eat beans to get any sound out of it in the future . . . Well, the excuse given afterwards for waking up parts of the camp that were supposed to be quiet was radical self-expression. I later came up with a way of radically expressing myself regarding the bullhorn. Seize the bullhorn, drop trou, and shower it. And I made it clear that if I'm ever pregnant and awakened by a bullhorn at an ungodly hour ever again, I *will* do that. Julia I figured that was pretty radical, anyway ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: It's a boy!
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/31/2003 7:46:26 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Congratulations from this front, as well! - jmh I'll cover the right or left side. I get *both* sides covered during nighttime feedings ;) (Daytime feedings are either one-at-a-time or on a special pillow resting on my lap.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:36:05AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Cancer bad. Baby may be good news or not, but cancer always bad. Not true. For example, Saddam Hussein and/or Osama bin Laden, cancer good. Not for Saddam or bin Laden! Cancer always bad for the person with the cancer -- is that a better refinement of the statement, Erik? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 31 Oct 2003, at 11:33 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: religious/political question Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:11:29 + On 31 Oct 2003, at 10:31 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 31 Oct 2003 at 21:28, William T Goodall wrote: Hence it is a non sequitur. Why? Because I'm attacking something YOU believe in for a change? My belief that your English comprehension skills are rather poor? Well, my English comprehension skills are extremely good, yet I don't see what you're referring to. Rather than sniping at Andy with one-liners, would you please explain the distinction? Quite frankly, I don't detect one here. You must have missed the bit that was snipped just above the above. I see Jan understood it anyway. However, I shall repeat it here (with a strong feeling of deja vu, since this actually all got discussed at length last November!) I said (in a previous post) It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the word. Then he said I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously. Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean something other than I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously. But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a different definition of religion than the one he used in the first paragraph. Hence it is a non sequitur. Now I'll go through that again, and I'll comment it for you so you can follow. It is actually. First Andrew argued that the definition 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion' meant religion qua religion and was not a figurative usage of the word. Andrew got this definition from dictionary.com I believe where the results for religion would be:- 1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Andrew wanted to characterize my position as being religious. Since he knows I am an atheist the only definition in this list that could be applicable is (5) so he picked it. Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not religion at all in a normal sense. The sentence 'He brushed his teeth religiously every night' is perfectly intelligible English under sense (5) of the word religion as given above, but to go from there to claiming that the tooth brushing was an actual religious act in anything other than a figurative sense would be to demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding of how the English language is used. Then he said I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days worship capitalism as a religion, quite seriously. My interpretation of this statement is that Andrew is using the word religion here in a distinctly different sense than is described by definition (5) above. As I explained below in my previous email:- Now it seems to me that for this to make any sense he must mean something other than I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously. The sentence I'm perfectly willing to argue that many people in these days pursue capitalism with zeal, quite seriously. is what Andrew's statement is equivalent to, if he is using the word religion in the sense given in (5) above. But this clearly isn't what he means because to 'be willing to argue...quite seriously' that 'many people ... pursue capitalism with zeal' is banal rather than forceful or surprising in the way that the structure of his comments leads me to suppose he thinks it is. So Andrew has unconsciously drifted away from the definition of religion as (5) that he quoted at the start to a different definition of religion which he does not make explicit. But if he does mean something different than that, then he is using a different definition of religion than the one he used in the first paragraph. So Andrew starts by giving a (mistaken) definition of religion. Then he implicitly uses a different definition of religion later in his rant. Hence it is a non sequitur. And hence it is a non sequitur. --
Re: religious/political question
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 01:34:11PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:36:05AM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Cancer bad. Baby may be good news or not, but cancer always bad. Not true. For example, Saddam Hussein and/or Osama bin Laden, cancer good. Not for Saddam or bin Laden! Cancer always bad for the person with the cancer -- is that a better refinement of the statement, Erik? Don't think small, look at the big picture, Julia! Think globally, you know... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Overloaded English was: Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003, at 6:20 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: The overloading of words has some serious consequneces to comunication in english. Unlike other languages we seem to refuse the creation of new words and so, old words get reused in new ways. This has seriously obsfiscating consequences to the transmision of ideas and consepts. One must gain an ever more precise insite into the intended meaning rather than the possible meanings of the resulting message. Take the word depricated for instance. It holds two meanings the most prominant to an engeneer would be to make something obsolete. But to a writter saying something is depricated means that it is of poor quality. 'Deprecated' is an odd word. Although every software engineer uses it, it seldom seems to get put in the spell-checker (although it actually is in this one) and so gets mutated into 'depreciated' on most of the software lists I am on. In the software feild one might use the word this, self, construct, entity, class, object, aspect, or any of thousands of words to mean 2 or more very specific things. Without previous experience and specific insite into the intended meaning converstaions about software can become quite confusing. I was going to add some amusing examples, but my brain stopped working :( -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Misuse of IMPs leads to strange, difficult-to-diagnose bugs. - Anguish et al. Cocoa Programming ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003 at 20:28, William T Goodall wrote: So Andrew starts by giving a (mistaken) definition of religion. Then he implicitly uses a different definition of religion later in his rant. Hence it is a non sequitur. And hence it is a non sequitur. I meant it *precisely* how I said it. You'd have to be utterly devoted to your own mnarrow view of life, bound by a ironclad doctine which allows no view outside your own little window. Oh wait... It's only a non sequitur if you can't accept reality. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Reggie Bautista wrote: Someone else said once in the same newsgroup Of course, since JMS is an atheist, he doesn't believe in hell, anyway. jms' reply was Says you. I'm FROM New Jersey Now, why does everyone have to crack on New Jersey? There aren't that many areas in the world where you are always within three hours' drive of the ocean, mountains, and major metropolitan areas. Yes, we have toxic waste and obnoxious IROC drivers, but otherwise it's not too bad a place. Either that or I'm beyond help, which is not out of the realm of possibility. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
The Fool wrote: Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? As someone who has had cancer and has had (well, fathered) children, I personally find the difference between the two to be pretty vast. Given a choice between the two, I think I like the latter a fair bit better. Now, if you wish to think of that lump of cells as a cancer that will ruin your life, I won't stop you or anyone else. And frankly, seeing as fertilization clinics toss more embryos than they place, I personally support stem cell research. But seeing as there's a great deal more *potential* in a freshly fertilized egg then there is in cancer cells, I'd think it would make sense that some people would not see it that way. But if you lack the human insight to see why *some* people might not agree with you, I don't know that there's really any point in trying to explain it to you. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
The Fool wrote: So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists SNIP further rantings Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over-the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Taking it all off (was Re: religious/political question)
Robert Seeberger wrote: Question: Why do people on this list so frequently show their ass? I do it because I'm an attention whore. Well, that and I like the feeling of dollar bills sliding into my g-string. Jim No Joke Too Low Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003, at 9:06 pm, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 1 Nov 2003 at 20:28, William T Goodall wrote: So Andrew starts by giving a (mistaken) definition of religion. Then he implicitly uses a different definition of religion later in his rant. Hence it is a non sequitur. And hence it is a non sequitur. I meant it *precisely* how I said it. Which part of my argument are you disagreeing with here? You'd have to be utterly devoted to your own mnarrow view of life, bound by a ironclad doctine which allows no view outside your own little window. Oh wait... It's only a non sequitur if you can't accept reality. LOL. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
DRAFT Brin update
Hi folks. I am sending out this draft of my annual (or semi) Author Update. Let me know if anything looks seriously awkward or seems to be missing, before I send it off to several thousand people who asked to be put on my notification list. Thanks! And good luck all. With cordial regards, David Brin www.davidbrin.com == A SEMI-ANNUAL UPDATE ABOUT BOOKS (and other interesting stuff) ..FROM DAVID BRIN Hello there. You're receiving this because you expressed some level of interest in the works of David Brin - either via www.davidbrin.com/ or by direct mail. Other authors may have hifalutin fan clubs. I just keep a long list of people who seem lively and interested in the Future. I'll only get in touch once or twice a year. TO BE REMOVED from this list, reply with REMOVE in your subject line. If you get *multiple copies* - reply to the one you don't want. Type REMOVE THIS ONE in the subject line. NEWS UPDATES: ANNOUNCING the arrival in bookstores of my big new graphic novel - The Life Eaters! This lavish 144 page hardcover - published by DC/Wildstorm - extends vividly into a full-length saga one of my classic novellas (runner-up for a Hugo Award) called Thor Meets Captain America, a dark but ultimately uplifting tale - offering chillingly plausible insight to what the Nazis might have really been up to, during World War II. If you haven't been tracking the incredible advance of graphic novels lately, they sure aren't 'comic books' any more. Critics are already calling Life Eaters 'the biggest thing to happen in the graphic novels since Watchmen or The Dark Knight' ! It was a fascinating experience, writing a detailed script, then supervising artists (like the great Scott Hampton) as well as producers, designers, letterers... very much like directing a mini-movie! Look for The Life Eaters in bookstores during the coming month. . (Note. Some bookstores don't fully-stock graphic novels, so ask at the store... or consider getting this one online. To order SIGNED first editions, go to http://www.mystgalaxy.com/) - Something quirky is going on with KILN PEOPLE! The novel came in second for this year's Hugo Award... and the Locus Award... and the John W. Campbell Award... not to mention the Arthur C. Clarke Award... in each case following a different first place finisher! Now mind you, that variety of winners is a good thing, expressing distinct priorities and tastes of the different panels, with different standards of what constitutes a great novel - some of them emphasizing plot and others 'literary value,' for example. That's fine. Diversity is one of the strengths of science fiction, the genre of exploration and wonder. So should I feel good that KILN PEOPLE was the universal second choice across such a wide range of tastes? Sure thing! Look at it this way -- if you have time to read two science fiction novels this year, now you know which book is guaranteed. Kiln People is either the most hilarious serious novel or the most serious humorous novel I have read, possibly both! - Vernor Vinge (Signed hardcovers of Kiln People can be ordered direct via: http://www.davidbrin.com/offers.html) Be sure and drop by www.davidbrin.com/ now and then! No, I don't update as regularly as some people. (No time for blogs!) The 'news' section may go a month or two between revisions. But BOY is the site packed with content, ranging from free story downloads and sample chapters to some wild and woolly speculations about the next century, to fan-generated art and philanthropic projects all the way to my infamous essays about Star Wars and Tolkien... and so on. If your large organization needs a speaker, drop by www.davidbrin.com/speaker. I may be a bit too expensive for many groups, so I'm also helping the Science Fiction Writers of America to develop a speaker's bureau for futurists and SF authors. We would welcome experienced volunteers willing to help set one up. It can't hurt to get more voices out there talking up tomorrow. - A note to GAMERS! Steve Jackson Games and Stefan Jones have re-issued (by popular demand) the legendary role playing system GURPS Uplift, much expanded over the version that was going for $100+ on eBay! Its unique system for creating new alien species has been tested by tee best game-players and at scientific conferences! For details see: www.io.com/~stefanj
Re: DRAFT Brin update
In a message dated 11/1/2003 4:47:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hint... they swim. They talk. They fly Hang gliding dolphins? William Taylor - Kiwi Halogen Productions Ltd. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:17:31PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Yes, we have toxic waste and obnoxious IROC drivers, but otherwise it's not too bad a place. Either that or I'm beyond help, which is not out of the realm of possibility. Transportation sucks. Traffic is horrible, and public transit has poor coverage unless you just want to go to New York or Philly. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DRAFT Brin update
d.brin wrote: If your large organization needs a speaker, drop by www.davidbrin.com/speaker. Needs to be www.davidbrin.com/speaker.html __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 1 Nov 2003, at 9:38 pm, Jim Sharkey wrote: The Fool wrote: So when andrew crystal starts building concentration camps and death camps, for atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists SNIP further rantings Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over-the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak. The method religion has usually used to eliminate disagreement is to eliminate those who disagree. The freethinker's approach to eliminating religion is through information, debate and education. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: DRAFT
d.brin wrote: But yes, a priority has to go to novels! So, guess where I'll be returning next? Hint... they swim. They talk. They fly Glee! It's a story about a bunch of Gameras! :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Erik Reuter wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Yes, we have toxic waste and obnoxious IROC drivers, but otherwise it's not too bad a place. Transportation sucks. Traffic is horrible, and public transit has poor coverage unless you just want to go to New York or Philly. Traffic's no worse than Atlanta or LA. Public transportation's not too good, true, but then I take the Northeast Corridor train every day, which is usually pretty good. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
William T Goodall wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over- the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak. The method religion has usually used to eliminate disagreement is to eliminate those who disagree. The freethinker's approach to eliminating religion is through information, debate and education. Seeing as *you* applauded the French government for making two schoolgirls take off their kaffiyahs, I'm not sure you get to take the high ground when it comes to bullying tactics. Does the freethinker often encourage this kind of education, or are you their lone hypocrite? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Transportation sucks. Traffic is horrible, and public transit has poor coverage unless you just want to go to New York or Philly. Well, bad traffic and poor public transit are not unique to New Jersey. At least New Jersey *has* New York and Philly to go to...not too many states are situated so favorably between two such terrific cities. New Jersey gets bad press...mostly by people who have never actually been here or whose personal experience is limited to the area around Newark Airport...which would be kind of like judging the entire state of Alaska only by looking at Prince William Sound immediately after the Exxon Valdez crashed and spilled. Or like judging the entire state of Texas by...the entire state of Texas. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:29:17PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Traffic's no worse than Atlanta or LA. That would be damning with faint praise? Or like saying Fargo has nice weather compared to Antarctica? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:36:51PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, bad traffic and poor public transit are not unique to New Jersey. At least New Jersey *has* New York and Philly to go to...not too many states are situated so favorably between two such terrific cities. If you want to spend hours commuting to and from work, Jersey's your place then! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
New Jersey gets bad press...mostly by people who have never actually been here or whose personal experience is limited to the area around Newark Airport...which would be kind of like judging the entire state of Alaska only by looking at Prince William Sound immediately after the Exxon Valdez crashed and spilled. Or like judging the entire state of Texas by...the entire state of Texas. Good point. However, it cannot alter my opinion of NJ since I have to look across the Delaware River at the butt end of a little town of Phillipsburg... Damon, and if you don't know anything about P'burg, count yourself blessed. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
If you want to spend hours commuting to and from work, Jersey's your place then! You're acting like New Jersey is somehow uniquely bad in this regard. The traffic near Boston, DC, Long Island, LA, and Atlanta is at least at bad and probably worse. The Long Island Expressway is not nicknamed The World's Longest Parking Lot for nothing. (On the other hand, I will admit that around here, people pray not to have to commute through Princeton...) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Erik Reuter wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Traffic's no worse than Atlanta or LA. That would be damning with faint praise? Or like saying Fargo has nice weather compared to Antarctica? No, it's that if you are going to say that the place sucks because of the traffic, you're going to have to say that cities people treat as being better than NJ suck too. I've lived in NJ 32 out of my 35 years. I know it has problems. I also know that it's not the armpit of America the way it gets made out to be. If it wasn't for the little brother of NYC it seems to get, it wouldn't have the same bad press. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Tom Beck wrote: You're acting like New Jersey is somehow uniquely bad in this regard. The traffic near Boston, DC, Long Island, LA, and Atlanta is at least at bad and probably worse. Exactly. You *could* move to Montana and never see two cars at the same time on the roads, but I don't know how many engineers they're hiring. Jim Suck it up Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:07:26PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're acting like New Jersey is somehow uniquely bad in this regard. The No, I'm not. And we won't say what you are acting like :-) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:10:19PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: No, it's that if you are going to say that the place sucks because of the traffic, you're going to have to say that cities people treat as being better than NJ suck too. No, I don't have to. Face it, Jersey sucks! Don't be a Jersey apologist :-) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:13:29PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Exactly. You *could* move to Montana and never see two cars at the same time on the roads, but I don't know how many engineers they're hiring. Or Jersey could build better roads and public transportation that doesn't suck! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Erik Reuter wrote: No, I don't have to. Face it, Jersey sucks! Don't be a Jersey apologist :-) hehehe, well, I'll admit that we *do* need to apologize big hair, flashing license plate frames, and ever allowing Joe Pisarcik to be a quarterback. We good? :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
Erik Reuter wrote: Or Jersey could build better roads and public transportation that doesn't suck! It's been my observation that at least part of the problem with improving public transportation is that Americans like their cars too much. If the state *was* to improve the system, I really don't know how many peope would actually take it. And of course, there's the question of who would pay for it. Even a place like DC that has a great public transportation system in the Metro winds up with loads of traffic. Jim Lived there the other three years Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 2 Nov 2003, at 1:36 am, Jim Sharkey wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over- the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak. The method religion has usually used to eliminate disagreement is to eliminate those who disagree. The freethinker's approach to eliminating religion is through information, debate and education. Seeing as *you* applauded the French government for making two schoolgirls take off their kaffiyahs, I'm not sure you get to take the high ground when it comes to bullying tactics. Does the freethinker often encourage this kind of education, or are you their lone hypocrite? LOL. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:32:03PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: Even a place like DC that has a great public transportation system in the Metro winds up with loads of traffic. But then you have a CHOICE! You don't have to sit in traffic, you can take the subway! New York city and Chicago both have useful train systems and lots of traffic -- I'll choose the train every time (and live close to a train). In Jersey, there just aren't enough train lines to live next to unless you just want to commute to New York or Philly, in which case, I'd rather live in New York or Philly anyway! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Jersey (was Re: religious/political question)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:34:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: B) Don't bother arguing with Erik - he's baiting us. There's no point responding to his obvious (if lame) attempts at trolling. Wrong as usual, Tom. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
On 2 Nov 2003 at 3:10, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Nov 2003, at 1:36 am, Jim Sharkey wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Considering that you have made it clear you would cheerfully eliminate all religions if given your druthers, I find this over- the-top hysteria pretty darn ironic. Talk about double-speak. The method religion has usually used to eliminate disagreement is to eliminate those who disagree. The freethinker's approach to eliminating religion is through information, debate and education. Seeing as *you* applauded the French government for making two schoolgirls take off their kaffiyahs, I'm not sure you get to take the high ground when it comes to bullying tactics. Does the freethinker often encourage this kind of education, or are you their lone hypocrite? LOL. Yes, I agree. It's silly to think you wernt being a complete hypocrite there. Nice to see your morals remain in place! Mine do. Even when it's NOT convenient. Even when some Neo-Nazi thug is trying to introduce me to the nearest wall, actually. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: religious/political question Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not religion at all in a normal sense. And, IIRC, you jumped all over me when I was making that argument. You even alleged that my momma sewed socks that smell. :-) I wouldn't call you any more or less religious than a Marxist. People with theist, non-theist, and atheistic viewpoints can be dogmatic about their metaphysical beliefs. One of the manifestations of dogmatism that I have noticed over the years is the attitude that error has no rights. Another is the denial of data that contradicts a priori belief. A third is the metaphorical extrapolation that is then taken as literal truth. An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip. He pointed out that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start until the 20s. At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head; and folks took notice. The real fight was between fundamentalists and folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather general at the time) scientific theory. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: religious/political question
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bullshit. I ask again: Why should anyone consider a parasitic lump of undifferentiated cells any differently from a cancer? Because a cancer is defined as an abnormal and malignant cell growth. Malignant, if you need clarification, means it has the potential to spread to other tissues in the body. Perhaps the word you were looking for is tumor which can describe any sort of abnormal cell growth in the body, cancerous or not. By your line of reasoning though, do you think abortion is wrong after cell differentiation has started (4 weeks after conception)? Just curious, not really looking to re-start that particular debate. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
